get_timeline_clips

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: clip indexes are unstable and must be re-read after edits. It also enumerates the exact data returned. It omits whether results span all tracks by default or ordering, which is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads scope and return fields, the second delivers the index-stability caveat. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully substitutes by naming the returned fields and the instability caveat. Slightly incomplete on default filtering behavior (which tracks are included when trackIndex is omitted) for a two-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the description says nothing about trackType or trackIndex. The enum values (video/audio/all) are largely self-describing and trackIndex is documented in the schema, so the practical gap is small, but the description provides zero compensating detail on filtering.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'List clips in the active sequence', and it enumerates the returned fields (timeline start/end, duration, source in/out, speed, state). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like find_clips, get_clips_at_time or get_clip_info, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 're-read after cutting or moving' gives one concrete usage rule, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives (e.g. find_clips for querying by criteria, get_clips_at_time for point lookups). Usage is implied by the scope rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.